AN ENVIRONMENTAL COMPARISON OF FOAM- CORE AND HOLLOW …
Transcript of AN ENVIRONMENTAL COMPARISON OF FOAM- CORE AND HOLLOW …
AN ENVIRONMENTAL COMPARISON OF FOAM-CORE AND HOLLOW WOOD SURFBOARDS:
CARBON EMISSIONS AND OTHER TOXIC CHEMICALS
Blair Hole
WOOD 493
A Report Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Bachelor of Science in Wood Products Processing
In
The Faculty of Forestry
April 18th, 2011
Abstract
Surfers in general are viewed as environmentally conscious individuals; however the boards that almost
all of them ride are not considered green. In the past few years there has been a movement in the
industry to find alternatives to the foam/fibreglass construction of surfboards. This movement was
sparked by the closing of Clark Foam in 2005, the largest producer and supplier in the U.S. of
polyurethane foam surfboard blanks. The plant was forced to shut down because of increasing
environmental regulations. In 2008 a life-cycle analysis of the most common types of surfboards was
performed to find out how this product was effecting the environment. There has been extensive
research into new foam technology for boards since 2005, however, I believe that wood is a good
alternative for surfboard construction. This paper includes a life-cycle assessment (LCA) to determine
the emissions from wood board production and compares them to that of classic foam boards. The
results show that wood surfboard production produces far less emissions of CO2, CO, SO2, NOx, VOC,
and PM10 than foam surfboard production does. The LCA of wood boards included raw material
production as well as production and assembly of the board itself. It can be concluded that from an
environmental standpoint wood surfboards are a much better choice than the foam boards in use now.
i
Contents List of Tables ................................................................................................................................................. ii
List of Figures ................................................................................................................................................ ii
1.0 Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 1
2.0 Construction ...................................................................................................................................... 1
2.1 Foam Surfboard ............................................................................................................................ 2
2.1.1 Materials ............................................................................................................................... 2
2.1.2 Method ................................................................................................................................. 3
2.2 Wood Surfboard ........................................................................................................................... 3
2.2.1 Materials ............................................................................................................................... 4
The materials needed for hollow wood surfboard construction are as follows: .................................. 4
2.2.2 Method ................................................................................................................................. 4
3.0 Environmental Comparisons ............................................................................................................ 5
3.1 List of Assumptions ....................................................................................................................... 5
3.2 Life Cycle Analysis (foam-core surfboard) ................................................................................... 6
3.2.1 Production ............................................................................................................................ 6
3.2.2 Useful life .............................................................................................................................. 6
3.2.3 End of Life ............................................................................................................................. 7
3.3 Life Cycle Analysis (Wood Board)................................................................................................. 7
3.3.1 Production ............................................................................................................................ 8
3.3.2 Useful Life ........................................................................................................................... 11
3.3.3 End of life ............................................................................................................................ 11
3.4 Uncertainty ................................................................................................................................. 11
4.0 Discussion ....................................................................................................................................... 12
4.1 Uncertainty Discussion ............................................................................................................... 13
5.0 Conclusion ....................................................................................................................................... 13
References .................................................................................................................................................. 15
ii
List of Tables Table 1 Other pollutant emissions from foam surfboard construction ........................................................ 6
Table 2 Amount of material forwood board components ............................................................................ 7
Table 3 Emissions from solid wood lumber production per surfboard. ....................................................... 9
Table 4 Emissions from Plywood Production per surfboard (Wilson & Sakimoto, 2005) .......................... 10
Table 5 Energy consumption per surfboard from surfboard production process ...................................... 10
Table 6 Emissions from energy use per surfboard ..................................................................................... 11
Table 7 Total Emissions, kg/surfboard for foam and wood boards ............................................................ 12
List of Figures Figure 1. Polyurethane Surfboard Construction (Schultz T. , 2011) ............................................................. 2
Figure 2 Life cycle of hardwood lumber (Bowe & Bergman, 2008) .............................................................. 8
Figure 3 Plywood production process (Wilson & Sakimoto, 2005) .............................................................. 9
1
1.0 Introduction
Surfing is a rapidly growing sport in North America and around the world. The surfing community is
seen as an environmentally conscious group; however the large majority of surfboards are not green
at all. They are made of foam, mainly polyurethane (PU) (Schultz, Surfboard Contruction, 2011),
fibreglass and resin in a process that produces emissions of carbon volatile organic compounds
(VOC’s) and other pollutants (Schultz, The Surfboard Cradle to Grave, 2009). The boards are also non
bio-degradable and cannot be recycled when they are no longer useable. In the past ten years or so
surfers have become more aware of the environmental impacts the surf industry had. This was
especially evident after Clark Foam, the largest producer of foam blanks, shut down in 2005 (Admin,
2005). Since then a variety of different types of foam have been tested and some are in use today.
The main alternative is extruded polystyrene (EPS). It is lighter and produces lower VOC emissions
than PU. Some companies are producing EPS boards, however PU is still the main core material on
the market today at about 85% of all boards produced (Schultz, Surfboard Contruction, 2011). The
limitation on EPS is the health effects it has on shapers (Surf Science, 2011). Surfboards are often
hand shaped, exposing the shaper to fine foam particles as they shape the blank. EPS also has a bad
reputation for water absorption and stiffness. It is because of these aspects that PU blanks have
maintained a large majority share of the market. While there is some experimentation with new
foams for surfboard cores such as EPS mentioned above, there is little talk about alternative core
materials other than foam. This paper will look at the viability of wood as a construction material for
surfboards. Originally surfboards were made from wood, and I believe moving back to wood is an
option. Wood is a renewable, recyclable and biodegradable material. The main goal of this paper is
to show the differences in the environmental impact of wood surfboards and foam core surfboards.
This will be done by comparing life cycle analyses (LCA) of each. A LCA of foam-core surfboards has
been done by Tobias Shultz, a grad student at Berkeley in 2008. I will create a LCA for a wood
surfboard and compare the results. The basic construction methods of each board will also be
outlined to aid understanding of the LCA’s. Because of its dominant market share I will only compare
PU foam-core surfboards to wood surfboards.
2.0 Construction
It is important to first define the construction methods for both foam boards and wood boards. This
will make the LCA easier to understand. To try and simplify the comparison, the construction
2
methods and materials of a board of dimensions 6’ x 20 5/8” x 2 1/4” (1.83m x 0.52m x 0.057m) will
be examined. This is a popular size for a surfboard used in most areas where surfing is prevalent.
There are many options for fins and fin systems that could be applicable to both boards so for the
purpose of this paper fins will not be analyzed.
2.1 Foam Surfboard
The large majority of surfboards sold today are constructed with foam and fibreglass. After many
years of experimenting and trying to improve board design this has taken over as the main method
because it is relatively cheap and easy to produce in large quantities. Boards are normally produced
first as blanks and then later sold to shapers who finish the job by hand. There is a variety of
foam/fibreglass/resin boards sold today. The most common one is polyurethane (PU) foam core
with unsaturated polyester resin (UPS) and fibreglass. This construction method can be seen in
figure 1. As stated above about 85% of boards today are made with this type of construction
(Schultz, Surfboard Contruction, 2011). This paper will only look at this type of foam board
construction.
Figure 1. Polyurethane Surfboard Construction (Schultz, Surfboard Contruction, 2011)
2.1.1 Materials
The materials used in the construction of a P/U and UPS surfboard are as follows (Schultz, The
Surfboard Cradle to Grave, 2009):
Foam core: 6’2”x20 5/8”x2 1/2” with wood stringer.
Fibreglass: 3.64m²
UPS Resin: 2.37L
Catalyst/Resin Hardener: 50mL
3
Surfacing agent: 100mL
(Converted to metric units)
2.1.2 Method
Foam core surfboards are made in two stages. First the foam “blank” is made by a company
that produces blanks in a variety of shapes and sizes. Then the blanks are bought by shapers
who hand shape the boards.
The production of the blank involves first producing the foam. Polyurethane foam is made by an
addition polymerization reaction. Some amounts of diol or polyol, diisocyanate, and water are
mixed together. The diisocyanate reacts with the diol/polyol to form urethane, and reacts with
water which gives off CO2 gas to create bubbles. Using different additives PU foam can be
made for a variety of different uses (Wang, 2006). Once the foam is set, the blank is cut in half
and the wood stringer is placed in the middle and glued into place.
The blanks are then sold to surfboard shapers. Shaping is generally done by hand, although
some do it mechanically using CNC machines. The shape of the board depends on what
performance characteristics the shaper is looking for. Once the board has been made into the
desired shape it goes on to the glassing stage.
The fibreglass is laid over the board and resin is applied and left to harden. Once the board has
been glassed and the resin has hardened on both sides the board is sanded to create a smooth
even surface.
2.2 Wood Surfboard
The first surfboards ever used were made out of solid wood and could be up to 14 feet long
(COTW, 2011). Board design and construction has come a long way since then and this paper
does not suggest taking any steps backwards. The board construction method that will be
looked at in this paper is a hollow board with a plywood rib system for vertical support, solid
wood rails and sawn solid wood top and bottom sheets with fibreglass and epoxy resin
(Gallagher, Classic Wood Surfboards, 2010). This type of board is not new, however it is not
produced in large quantities. There is a variety of methods used today for building a hollow
wood surfboard. I will analyze the method used by Gallagher surfboards as it is fairly standard.
4
These boards are custom made by hand and therefore cannot be directly compared to foam
board production. In order to make a better comparison I will assume the wood boards are
produced in larger quantities in a more automated production process.
2.2.1 Materials
The materials needed for hollow wood surfboard construction are as follows:
Plywood
Solid wood for top/bottom sheets and rails
Fibreglass
Resin
2.2.2 Method
The method for constructing a hollow wood surfboard is very different from the method to build a
conventional foam board. There are more raw materials involved and more components that need
to be fabricated. Wood boards are not produced as blanks the way foam boards are. They are
produced in one shop and the finished product is ready for use.
There are four major components that have to be produced and then assembled together. These
components are as follows (Gallagher, 2010):
1. Spine and Ribs
2. Rails
3. top and bottom sheet
4. Fibreglass and resin
The spine and rib components are the main structural component in the board. They are made out
of plywood and will be cut out 2440x1440mm (4’x8’) sheets. Once the ribs and spine are cut to size
they will be assembled by hand. The ribs and the spine are produced with a half lap joint for ease of
assembly. A small amount of glue is placed in each rib-spine joint. The top and bottom sheets are
made of solid wood cut to about 19mm thick and edge glued together. The assembled spine and
ribs are then glued onto the bottom sheet of the board. The rails are then built onto the board by
bending multiple small strips over the edge of the ribs from the nose to the tail. The strips are all
5
glued together to form the rail. After the glue has set the rails are shaped. Next the top sheet is
glued on and the board is cut to its final shape and sanded smooth. After this fibreglass and resin
are applied using the same procedure as in foam board production.
Machines used in production include (Gallagher, 2010):
Table Saw
Band Saw
Planer
Jointer
Chop Saw
Belt Sander
3.0 Environmental Comparisons
The purpose of the LCA for each board type is to try and determine the difference in the
environmental impact from each. The most important part of the LCA for both types is the cores
of the surfboards. The cores consist of the board minus the fibreglass and resin. Although PU
boards usually use UPS resin, which has larger environmental impacts, epoxy resin can be used as
well. Both boards use fibreglass to seal the board and give it its final strength characteristics.
Since the glassing process is the same for both boards, emissions for both will be assumed the
same and therefore not analyzed. The emissions for fibreglass and resin and other chemicals
used in the glassing/finishing process have been removed from the final numbers. There are
some different options such as a bamboo fibreglass substitute however it could be used for
either construction method so it will not be analyzed. While some repairs will be necessary they
will be far fewer and will require less material. Transportation from the production facility to the
retailer or customer is not analyzed in this report because this is necessary for both board types.
LCA’s will be done for one surfboard of the dimensions mentioned in the construction section.
3.1 List of Assumptions
1) The US power generation spread is an accurate representation of that used by surf
manufacturers and will produce relevant emission values. The U.S. emission averages from
6
electricity generation are relevant values to the emissions from energy use of a wood
surfboard manufacturer.
2) LCA studies for foam surfboards, plywood and solid wood are accurate and relevant. The
average emissions from the mills tested are a relatively accurate representation of the
emissions of the mills that would supply the raw materials for wood surfboards.
3) Emissions from production can be separated down to a per surfboard basis and that this is an
accurate representation of the entire process.
3.2 Life Cycle Analysis (foam-core surfboard)
3.2.1 Production
As stated in the introduction, the LCA for a foam board has already been done in the Surfboard
Cradle-to-Grave Project by Tobias Shultz at the University of California, Berkeley. The necessary
results will be restated below. All values have been converted from imperial to metric.
The carbon emissions from the blank production and shaping processes are 60kg of CO2 gas per
board. The majority of the carbon emissions come from blank production and resin application.
Table 1 shows the amounts of materials per surfboard for the glassing process.
There is also an assortment of toxic by-products released in surfboard production. The table
below gives the values in kilograms per surfboard.
Table 1 Other pollutant emissions from foam surfboard construction (Schultz, The Surfboard Cradle to Grave, 2009)
all units in kg CO2 CO SO2 NOX VOC PM10
UPR 60 0.27 0.076 0.076 0.085 0.014
These emission values include blank production and shaping, fibreglass and resin are not
included.
3.2.2 Useful life
During the useful life of the surfboard there is little environmental impact. The board is used
until the owner either breaks it or decides it is no longer useful to them.
7
3.2.3 End of Life
After the user is finished with the board there are two possible scenarios; sale and reuse; and
disposal. If the board is sold and reused it returns to the useful life stage. If it is disposed of the
board will likely go to a landfill. The foam is not biodegradable and it may leach some toxic
chemicals after some time (Schultz, The Surfboard Cradle to Grave, 2009).
3.3 Life Cycle Analysis (Wood Board)
In order to properly do a life-cycle analysis (LCA) of a wood surfboard all of the individual
materials have to be taken into consideration. These materials include solid wood, plywood,
glue, fibreglass and resin. The processes to make each material and the emissions from those
processes will have a large effect on the overall lifecycle of the board. Quantities for each wood
material are shown in the table below. The ribs are assumed to be rectangular for ease of
calculations; there are 12 ribs in total in the board. The top and bottom sheets are also
assumed to be rectangles as they are produced as a rectangular sheet then cut to shape
(Gallagher, 2010). The rails are also square as they are rounded after assembly. Glue will not be
assessed in this LCA because little glue is needed and it has little effect on the total emissions.
Table 2 Amounts of materials for wood surfboard components
Quantities for fibreglass and resin materials are the same as for foam-core surfboards and can be
found in Table 1 in the previous section.
Component
Material Ribs (m²) Top/bottom (m³) Rails (m³)
Solid
Wood - 0.02 0.01
Plywood 0.38 - -
8
3.3.1 Production
Solid Wood
Information on emissions from solid wood production taken from “LCI of Softwood Lumber
Production” by Milota, West and Hartley; and “Environmental Impact of Producing Hardwood
Lumber Using Life-Cycle Inventory” by Bergman and Bowe. All values converted to a per
surfboard basis.
Below is an outline of the basic process of producing lumber. Various emissions are associated
with this process. Each different process uses energy, some of the energy is electric and comes
from the power grid, and some is created by burning wood waste from the mill.
Hollow wood surfboards can be made with many different species to achieve an appearance that
appeals to each individual. For this reason I will look at both softwood and hardwood lumber
production for the wood used to produce the top and bottom sheets and the rails. This will give
a range of possible emissions depending on the species used in each specific board. The table
below shows the emissions from both softwood and hardwood lumber production.
Figure 2 Life cycle of hardwood lumber (Bowe & Bergman, 2008)
9
Table 3 Emissions from solid wood lumber production per surfboard. (Milota, West, & Hartley, 2005), (Bowe & Bergman, 2008)
Emissions
(kg/surfboard) CO2 CO SO2 NOX VOC PM10
Softwood 15.5 0.0370 0.0296 0.0129 0.00240 0.0499
Hardwood 17.0 0.0939 0.0345 0.0306 0.0360 0.00221
Plywood
Information on the life cycle and emissions from plywood wood production was taken from
“Gate to Gate Life-Cycle Inventory of Softwood Plywood Production” by Wilson and Sakamoto.
Units have been converted to amounts per surfboard.
The basic process of producing plywood is outlined in figure 6. All of the processes require
energy which creates emissions. There are also some emissions from the resin used in the
plywood.
Figure 3 Plywood production process (Wilson & Sakimoto, 2005)
Emissions from plywood production are shown in the table below. They are for a plywood plant
in the Pacific Northwest.
10
Table 4 Emissions from Plywood Production per surfboard (Wilson & Sakimoto, 2005)
Kg/surfboard CO2 CO SO2 NOX VOC PM10
Emissions 0.89 0.0051 0.0026 0.0016 0.0016 0.00055
These values include emissions from energy use, both electric and other sources such as wood
fuel boilers used in the production process as well as emissions from the plant itself.
Surfboard Production
This production process is outlined above in the construction section. It involves producing each
of the components of the surfboard and assembling the board. The main contributor to
emissions from the production of the surfboard is going to be power consumption from the
machines. The table below shows the power consumption for the machines used in production.
The values are averages from a number of similar machines. The power consumption has been
converted to per surfboard units.
Table 5 Energy consumption per surfboard from surfboard production process
(kWh)/surfboard
Table
Saw Planer Jointer Bandsaw
Belt
Sander
Chop
Saw Total
Power
Consumption 4.0 2.5 2.5 0.5 0.2 0.4 10.1
Since most surfboards are produced in the US the emissions from electrical power generation
will be taken from the average in the US. The average amount of CO2 emissions in the US in
1.341 lb/kWh or 0.610 kg/kWh (US Department of Energy, 2000). Converted to a per surfboard
unit it becomes 6.160 kg CO2 emissions per surfboard.
11
Table 6 Emissions from energy use per surfboard
(Miller & Van Atten, 2004) (US Department of Energy, 2000)
Power Generation
(kg/surfboard) CO2 CO SO2 NOX VOC PM10
Emissions 6.16 - 0.038 0.017 - -
Sufficient data could not be found on the emissions from power generation for carbon monoxide,
VOC’s and PM10.
3.3.2 Useful Life
Similar to foam-core surfboards, wood boards have little emissions in their useful life. They may
also require the odd repair but overall there is little to no environmental impacts from the board
during use.
3.3.3 End of life
After its useful life the same two scenarios are likely, resale and reuse, and disposal. The
difference is that wood is biodegradable and recyclable. If the board is thrown out, the majority
of it is biodegradable. Unlike the foam-core boards, wood surfboards can be recycled. The
fibreglass can be stripped off and the wood can either be reused in another application or
recycled somewhere else.
3.4 Uncertainty
There is some uncertainty involved with this LCA. The main cause of uncertainty is the different
time periods that the data comes from. The LCA’s for plywood and solid wood are from 2005
and 2008 while the power generation data for the U.S. is from 2000 and the surfboard cradle to
grave report was completed in 2009. This may cause some discrepancies in the final numbers for
emissions from each process.
There is also uncertainty in the data for some of the emissions from energy consumption as I
could not locate data on VOC, carbon monoxide and PM10 emissions from U.S. power generation.
This will probably cause the wood board emission values for these chemicals to be lower than
they actually are.
12
The final uncertainty issue is with the raw materials data for the wood board construction. The
LCA’s for plywood and solid wood are taken as average values from a number of mills. The raw
materials used for the wood board will likely come from only a few mills and therefore will
probably be different than the average. The same can be said for power consumption.
Depending on the area where the boards are manufactured the power generation will be from a
different source and could have different emissions.
4.0 Discussion
After looking at the emissions from production of foam core and hollow core wood surfboards it
is obvious that the emissions from production of wood boards are much lower. Table 8 below
shows the results clearly. Throughout the entire process of producing a wood board, including
the production of raw materials and the production of the board itself wood boards produce
lower emissions in all categories analyzed. Solid wood values were taken as an average of
hardwood and softwood emissions. This means that emissions could fluctuate if different
quantities of hardwoods or softwoods are used; however this fluctuation will be minimal and will
have little effect on the total emissions.
Table 7 Total Emissions, kg/surfboard for foam and wood boards
Total emissions kg/surfboard CO2 CO SO2 NOX VOC PM10
Wood 23.30 0.071 0.073 0.040 0.021 0.0017
Foam (PU core) 60 0.27 0.076 0.076 0.085 0.014
It is important to note, as mentioned above that the wood boards are not mass produced and
there for the emissions values for the actual board production may not be directly comparable
to foam board production. The majority of the emissions for wood surfboards, however, come
from raw material production. If the raw material production (plywood and solid wood) is
viewed as the equivalent to foam blank production and the board production is viewed as
equivalent to the shaping process this comparison makes more sense. If the production of
wood boards was increased and a larger shop producing large quantities of boards was in
operation the emission values would of course be different. Wood board emissions are
13
significantly lower than that of foam boards giving a lot of room to change the process and still
produce less emissions.
Another issue with foam boards is with its after use characteristics. Once the board is finished
being used or no longer usable there is not much that can be done with it. Often times the
board just sits outside or gets sent to a landfill. Toxic chemicals present in the board can leach
into the ground (Schultz, The Surfboard Cradle to Grave, 2009). The foam is not biodegradable
and it cannot be easily recycled. Wood on the other hand is biodegradable and can be recycled
with relative ease. It also holds large amounts of carbon within its structure limiting carbon
releases into the atmosphere.
The major limitation on wood surfboards today is the cost. Grain Surfboards is a producer of
hollow wood surfboards and they generally sell their boards for $1500-$2000. This is roughly
three times the average surfboard price which is $600 (Surfboard Industry Sags, 2008). However,
like Gallagher surfboards Grain produces their boards in smaller quantities mainly by hand. This
price could be significantly lowered by producing more boards in a more high-tech shop.
4.1 Uncertainty Discussion
While the possible uncertainties outlined earlier will likely cause some differences in the
emission values, the difference between wood and foam board emissions from production is
quite large. This gives a lot of room for changes without changing the results. There is also the
chance that this uncertainty will actually lower the emissions depending on which suppliers are
used and what type of power generation is prevalent in the area where the surfboards are
produced.
5.0 Conclusion
Wood surfboards have much lower carbon emissions as well as other toxic emissions making it a
good option for a “greener” alternative to the traditional foam core surfboards. While in mass
production it may be harder to create personally shaped boards to the rider’s specifications, it is
a good product for the majority of surfers. If this change were to take place the emissions from
surfboard manufacturing would decrease dramatically. This shift would also remove the issue of
14
non-recyclable, non biodegradable waste from old foam boards that are either broken or
finished being used. A new process will have to be developed to produce wood boards at more
competitive prices in order to gain enough market share to have any environmental impact. The
technology needed is there so it is likely possible to design a process to do this.
15
References Admin. (2005, December 5). Clark Foam Closes its Doors. Retrieved March 21, 2011, from Surfing
Magazine: http://www.surfingmagazine.com/news/clark-foam-120505/
Bowe, S. A., & Bergman, R. D. (2008, January). Environmental Impact of Producing Hardwood Lumber.
Wood and Fiber Science , 448-458.
Gallagher, D. (2010, July 31). Balints Hollow Redwood Surfboard (parts 1-6). Retrieved March 18, 2011,
from You Tube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nEcjh4aVQQw
Gallagher, D. (2010). Classic Wood Surfboards. Retrieved January 23, 2011, from Gallagher Surfboards:
http://www.gallagherwoodsurfboards.com/boards/11-1960s-jacobs
History of the Surfboard. (n.d.). Retrieved March 21, 2011, from Club of the Waves:
http://www.clubofthewaves.com/surf-culture/history-of-the-surfboard.php
Miller, P. J., & Van Atten, C. (2004). North American Power Plant Air Emissions. Montreal, QC, Canada:
Commission for Environmental Cooperation of North America.
Milota, M. R., West, C. D., & Hartley, I. D. (2005). Gate-to-Gate Life-Cycle Inventory of Softwood Lumber
Production. Wood and Fiber Science , 47-57.
Schultz, T. C. (2011, February 27th). Surfboard Contruction. Retrieved March 21th, 2011, from
Sustainable Surfing Coalition: http://sustainablesurfcoalition.org/?p=349
Schultz, T. C. (2009). The Surfboard Cradle to Grave. Berkely, California: University of Canifornia,
Berkeley.
Surf Science. (2011). New Word on Surfboard Foam. Retrieved March 23, 2011, from Surf Science:
http://www.surfscience.com/topics/surfboard-anatomy/materials/surfboard-foam
Surfboard Industry Sags. (2008, June 1). Retrieved January 29, 2011, from Surf Economics:
http://surfeconomics.blogspot.com/2008/06/surfboard-industry-sags.html
US Department of Energy. (2000). Carbon Dioxide Emissions from the Generation of Electric Power in the
United States. Washington DC: Environmental Protection Agency.
Wang, L. (2006, January 9). Polyurethane Foam. Chemical and Engineering News , 84 (2), p. 48.
Wilson, J. B., & Sakimoto, E. T. (2005). Gate-to-Gate Life-Cycle Inventory of Softwood Plywood
Production. Wood and Fiber Science , 37 (CORRIM Special Issue), 58-73.